On Friday 24 May 2013, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> So this won't work, unless we add the is_kernel_addr check
> to might_fault. That will become possible on top of this patchset
> but let's consider this carefully, and make this a separate
> patchset, OK?
Yes, makes sense.
Arnd
__
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 04:00:32PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:59:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 16 May 2013, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ do {
> > > \
> > >
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:59:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 16 May 2013, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ do {
> > \
> > long __pu_err; \
> > __
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:59:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 16 May 2013, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ do {
> > \
> > long __pu_err; \
> > __
On Thursday 16 May 2013, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ do {
> \
> long __pu_err; \
> __typeof__(*(ptr)) __user *__pu_addr = (ptr); \
> if (!is
The only reason uaccess routines might sleep
is if they fault. Make this explicit.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h | 16
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h
b/arch/powerpc/incl
